Talk:2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Group articles

Will be there group articles like in Euro 2012 or AFCON-2013? Andrey Tsyganov (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is no importance to group articles.--Uishaki (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification box

A few weeks ago, the design of the qualification box was changed to show the teams that had qualified, as well as their best attempt whilst at the U20 World Cup. This was then removed, with the qualification box we see now still up. I propose that we re-instate this design (you can see how it looks, as it is used at at the 2013 CONCACAF Gold Cup page). IanCleverly (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and think we should revert the qualification box to that of 06:03, 27 February 2013.

I like that version. It combines pretty well both formats. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the last one, before the format changed, and I think that format was better than the one we are using now. Volvov70 (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go for it. -Koppapa (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, but as there's only been 3 responses I'll leave it as it is. IanCleverly (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to change. But at this point El Salvador is not yet eliminated. It has mathematical options to advance if thirds of groups E and F have world record (it´s difficult, but not mathamtically impossible) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.15.226.221 (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. They are mathematically eliminated. While they can finish above the Group F third-placed team (if New Zealand do not win and Uruguay lose 6-0 or by at least 7 goals), they will however finish below the Group E third-placed one because of Egypt vs England (if Egypt win, they will have a better GD (at least -1); if they draw, England will also have a better GD (0); and if England win, well, the third-placed team will at least have 4 points). Schnapper (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Was missing that at first sight. -Koppapa (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout stage assignment of 3rd-placed teams

Can someone explain how the assignment of 3rd-placed teams works? I've seen Colombia - South Korea and now Greece - Uzbekistan being filled in the knockout stages whereas from how I understand it, there's nothing actually saying for sure that those teams will be playing in those matches.

As reference:
Winner group D vs. 3rd group B / E / F
Winner group B vs. 3rd group A / C / D
Winner group C vs. 3rd group A / B / F
Winner group A vs. 3rd group C / D / E

Let's say for example, that the 3rd-placed teams from groups A, B, C and D qualify. Then the first fixture must have the 3rd-placed team from group B, which in turn implies that the third fixture must have the 3rd-placed team from group A. However, it would not be clear where the third-placed teams from groups C and D go, as both can be placed in the second and fourth fixtures without any conflicts. The problem is even worse when the 3rd-placed teams from groups B, C, D and F qualify, as then, none of the 4 fixtures could be filled in.

Right now, we know the 3rd-placed teams from groups B, D and F have qualified, and the 3rd-placed team from group C has been eliminated. From what I see, there will be a ambiguous case in the first and third fixture regardless of who the last qualifier is. Then how can people be so sure of those two fixtures that they end up filling in South Korea and Uzbekistan? Sausage948 (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed an ambiguous case here. Can someone explain how FIFA did proceed? Because Uzbekistan and South Korea could also have respectively met Colombia and Greece. Schnapper (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this article appear how third places are paired with group winners (write in google -cesar del juego sistemas mixtos- and appear following the 15 combinations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.15.226.221 (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand either. :-) But the regulations have a pretty big table explaining every single case and assigning the teams to 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D: Page 39 -Koppapa (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]